The Ancient Greek philosopher, Aristotle, identified virtue as a golden mean, lying half way between too much and too little — courage midway between being cowardly and being rash, generosity midway between being miserly and being profligate, and so forth.

As part of a theory of ethics, this has much to recommend it. But, after a third of a century involved in politics, I have come to the conclusion that it is even more true as a description of how political decisions should be viewed.

As we have seen in the Brexit debate over the last few years, there is a terrible temptation for people engaged in political discussions to adopt all-or-nothing ‘positions’. It sounds so brave, so bold, so clear.

But, the more closely one looks at the question of what stands the best chance of preserving stability and prosperity, the more evident it becomes that the world doesn’t fit neatly into any of these bold, brave positions. The world is complicated and messy — and the solutions that work best are therefore also likely to be complicated and messy, lying somewhere between opposing poles.

I think the same is true when it comes to debates about the environment. More and more, I have come to distrust the people who have clear, bold views about the ecosystem. Such views lead one set of protagonists to dismiss wind power even where it can make an important contribution to energy supply with minimal visual impact, and lead another set of protagonists to advocate vast wind turbines even where they will make little contribution to energy supply and will despoil the landscape for miles around.

The ecosystem and the economy, like Brexit, are complicated and messy — and the solutions that work best in the long term are very likely to be anything but bold and brave and clear. They are, on the contrary, likely to be complicated, unheroic, sensible compromises.